Page 1 of 1 As of: February 07, 2011 Received: January 03, 2011 Status: Posted PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: January 13, 2011 Tracking No. 80bc42e4 Comments Due: February 17, 2011 Submission Type: Web Docket: DOE-HQ-2010-0002 Rulemaking to Amend 10 CFR Part 1021: National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures Comment On: DOE-HQ-2010-0002-0014 National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures Document: DOE-HQ-2010-0002-0019 Comment on FR Doc # 2010-32316 Submitter Information Name: William Kirk Williams Address: 5428 S. Broadwing Way 5428 S. Broadwing Way Boise, Idaho, 83716 Email: [email protected] Fax: (208) 333-9506 General Comment Please do not include "Wind Turbines" and "Solar Potovoltaic" systems among categorical exclusions. Such projects are far too big and consume far too much land to be build without following the EIS process. Wind Turbines kill birds in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Without mandatory compliance with EIS no mechanism to assurme BMPs for minimizing bird kills will be in place. Solar Potovoltaic systems have the potential to condemn vast amounts of federal land simultaneously negatively affecting ecosystems of other species, such as sage grouse and economic interests of local communities who might be shut off from existing economic uses of federal lands. One advantage of the EIS processs is considering multiple options for decisions. The use of far too much land is at stake for including both uses as categorical exclusions. file://Z:\2010 CX Rulemaking\01 Comments on Proposed Rule\Comments Received at regulati... 3/9/2011 Page 1 of 1 As of: February 07, 2011 Received: January 03, 2011 Status: Posted PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: January 13, 2011 Tracking No. 80bc43c7 Comments Due: February 17, 2011 Submission Type: Web Docket: DOE-HQ-2010-0002 Rulemaking to Amend 10 CFR Part 1021: National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures Comment On: DOE-HQ-2010-0002-0014 National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures Document: DOE-HQ-2010-0002-0020 Comment on FR Doc # 2010-32316 Submitter Information Name: NOT AVAILABLE N/A Address: NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE N/A, -, 00000 Email: [email protected] Phone: 000-000-0000 Submitter's Representative: N/A Organization: NOT AVAILABLE General Comment RIN 1990-AA34 - I DO NOT WANT THESE CHANGES TO NEPA IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. I THINK THIS IS A POWER GRAB BY A POWER MAD DOE. I THNK THE BUSH CHENEY OIL GUYS WHO DESTROY ENVIRONMENT ARE STILL THERE IN PROFUSION AND THEY ARE SEEKING TO DESTROY, DESTROY, DESTROY GOD'S WORK. I THINK THIS CHANGE WILL LEAD TO ANOTHER DEBACLE LIKE THE GULF OIL MESS. I DO NOT BELIEVE DOE SHULD EVER BLINDLY ACCEPT WHAT USDA DOES, BECAUSE USDA IS A CORRUPT AGENCY THAT WORKS FOR AGRIBUSINESS AND CONSIDERS NOT THE GENERAL EFFECTON AMERICANS FROM THEIR FRANKENFOOD CORRUPTION. I DO NOT LIKE THE SECTION ON PIPELINES. WE HAVE HAD MAJOR PIPELINES BLOW UP. THIS AGENCY HAS ALSO ALLOWED MAJOR OIL FIRMS TO FAIL TO MAINTAIN PIIPELINES FOR 17 YEARS. THIS AGENCY HAS ALLOWED THOUSANDS OF OIL SPILLS WITH LITTLE PUNISHMENT. THIS AGENCY NEEDS BRAKES ON IT. I THINK THIS AGENCY IS TRYING TO GUT NEPA. I DO NOT APPRECIATE THAT AND BELIEVE IF YOU DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT, YOU DESTROY US ALL. file://Z:\2010 CX Rulemaking\01 Comments on Proposed Rule\Comments Received at regulati... 3/9/2011 Page 1 of 2 As of: February 07, 2011 Received: January 25, 2011 Status: Posted PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: January 31, 2011 Tracking No. 80bd2f24 Comments Due: February 17, 2011 Submission Type: Web Docket: DOE-HQ-2010-0002 Rulemaking to Amend 10 CFR Part 1021: National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures Comment On: DOE-HQ-2010-0002-0014 National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures Document: DOE-HQ-2010-0002-0021 Comment on FR Doc # 2010-32316 Submitter Information Name: Brian R Musser Address: 26 Pageant Ct Belleville Belleville, IL, 62220 Email: [email protected] Phone: 319-530-8483 General Comment With the resources we have today we are able to understand the importance of proper containment of coal combustion residue. As the accident in the Tennessee Valley Area proved, our facilities are not invincible. The estimated cost of cleaning up the disaster was $1.2 billion. That facility failed, leaving me wondering about all of the other ones scattered across the United States. Incidents like that prove that CCR must be included instead of excluded in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The question is which subtitle to add it to? Out of the two options I believe that adding coal combustion residue should be added to RCRA Subtitle C for four reasons; they are: 1. Continuation of evolution. To ultimately succeed we need to put more than a band-aid upon the wound CCR has on our environment, we need to pass regulation that controls CCR by balancing resource consumption and environmental impact. The mandatory containment liner thickness is definitely a must to prevent as much leaching as possible. 2. Plenty of time granted. Subtitle C grants CCR containment facilities five years to meet the regulation along with two more years for facilities that plan on closing. That is plenty of time allotted to meet the requirements of subtitle C. 3. Costs. The difference in estimated costs of regulating CCR for 50 years in each subtitle is large; c file://Z:\2010 CX Rulemaking\01 Comments on Proposed Rule\Comments Received at regulati... 3/9/2011 Page 2 of 2 is $20 billion, d is $8 billion; approximately the cost of 14 TVA accidents. But the difference between the two options goes much further than the cost. 4. Our future. We can “clean up” the area where a CCR release has occurred, but it doesn’t remove everything. Leaching can also cause contamination in waterways, ultimately making its way into our drinking water. With such importance riding on this decision I know that higher regulation of CCR disposition will pay off. file://Z:\2010 CX Rulemaking\01 Comments on Proposed Rule\Comments Received at regulati... 3/9/2011 Page 1 of 1 As of: February 07, 2011 Received: February 02, 2011 Status: Posted PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: February 03, 2011 Tracking No. 80bd98c1 Comments Due: February 17, 2011 Submission Type: Web Docket: DOE-HQ-2010-0002 Rulemaking to Amend 10 CFR Part 1021: National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures Comment On: DOE-HQ-2010-0002-0014 National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures Document: DOE-HQ-2010-0002-0022 Comment on FR Doc # 2010-32316 Submitter Information Name: Scott Yundt Address: 2582 Old First St. 2582 Old First St. Livermore, California, 94550 Email: [email protected] Phone: 925-443-7148 Organization: Tri-Valley CAREs General Comment See attached file(s) Attachments DOE-HQ-2010-0002-0022.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2010-32316 file://Z:\2010 CX Rulemaking\01 Comments on Proposed Rule\Comments Received at regulat... 3/10/2011 T r i – V a l l e y C A R E s Communities Against a Radioactive Environment 2582 Old First Street, Livermore , CA 94551 • (925) 443 -7148 • www.trivalleycares.org Peace Justice Environment since 1983 NEPA Rulemaking Comments Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC–54) U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 February 3, 2011 Re: Docket ID: DOE–HQ–2010–0002: Comment on DOE Rulemaking Change Regarding Regulations Governing Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act To the U.S. Deparment of Energy’s Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, Tri-Valley CAREs (TVC) is a non-profit organization founded in 1983 by Livermore, California area residents to research and conduct public education and advocacy regarding the potential environmental, health and proliferation impacts of the Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons complex, including the nearby Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Since its inception, TVC has participated in numerous National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) administrative review processes being done by DOE. We comment during scoping for DOE NEPA documents and on drafts of its Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. The group has also participated in federal litigation to uphold NEPA when the DOE violated statutory requirements or ignored concerns expressed in comments. The proposed rule change to 10 CFR 1021 contains some alterations to the statute that we believe could expand the use of categorical exclusions in a manner that could result in violations of NEPA and other statutes. Our concerns include the following; 1) Generally, the decision to add “headings” to each section is a good one. However, it is unclear as to why the addition of headings to the sections negates the need for a table of contents. The table of contents for these sections is extremely useful for non-agency users and for lawyers conducting legal research. We urge the Agency to add revised tables of contents to these regulations rather than removing them entirely. Can the Agency explain why it can not continue to provide a table of contents for these sections and also provide section headings? 2) § 1021.410 (e) – This new section provides that “Categorical exclusion determinations for actions listed in appendix B shall be documented and made available to the public by posting online.” It is a welcome development that the Department is taking steps towards increased transparency. However, because these postings will withhold “information that DOE would not disclose pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),” we are concerned that the public will be deprived of a right to challenge these withholdings that it would have if it the information was requested using FOIA and there were withholdings. Can the Agency please explain the process by which the public can challenge potentially improper withholdings in an online posting of a categorical exclusion determination under this rule change? 3) Appendix B to Subpart D of part 1021.